IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Robert Martin, :

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:12-cv-341

 v. :

Gwendolyn L. Woods, : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

 Defendant. :

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff, Robert Martin, a state prisoner who resides at

the Pickaway Correctional Institution, submitted a complaint to

this Court on April 17, 2012. His complaint was accompanied by a

document entitled “Indigency Affidavit to Proceed without Costs.”

Mr. Martin provided this information about his financial

situation:

1. I am indigent making $6 per month for medical pay;

2. I have no taxable income over exemption standard of

125% over federal minimum poverty level. A vested

contractual statutory right under R.C. 2329.661(B);

2329.66(13)(a), (17), R.C. 5120.33(B); RC. 120.51(B).

(Doc. 1).

Based upon the filing fee provisions of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act found at 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2), which

require a prisoner who seeks to bring an action without

prepayment of the filing fee to “submit a certified copy of the

trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for

the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the

filing of the complaint” which the prisoner is to obtain from

“the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is

or was confined,” the Court directed Mr. Martin to supplement his

filing. In response to that order, which was filed on April 19,

Case: 2:12-cv-00341-ALM-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 07/02/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

2012, Mr. Martin filed a document he called “Leave to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis.” He attached the correct certificate to his

document, but it was blank. He also said that he could not “be

held liable for cashier certificates.” (Doc. 3).

The Court, thinking it likely that Mr. Martin was attempting

to communicate the fact that he had asked the appropriate prison

official to fill out this certificate but that the official had,

for some reason, refused to do so, then issued another order

requiring Mr. Martin to submit either the completed certificate

or a copy of whatever request he made to his institution for a

completed certificate. That way, the Court could determine if it

needed to direct the prison official to fill out the necessary

paperwork so that the Court could assess Mr. Martin the correct

filing fee.

Mr. Martin’s response to that order was filed on June 13,

2012. Its contents are somewhat surprising. Mr. Martin now

claims that he does not consent to the prison cashier taking

funds from his account to pay even a partial filing fee in this

case and asserts that Congress had no power to adopt those

provisions of the PLRA which authorize such deductions from a

prisoner’s account. He apparently has not, and will not, submit

the account statement which is mandated by §1915(a)(2).

There are a number of problems with Mr. Martin’s approach to

this issue. First, the filing fee provision of the PLRA has

consistently been upheld against constitutional attack. See,

e.g., Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1288 (6th Cir.

1997)(holding that a balancing of the various factors involved in

a Due Process analysis “compel[s] the conclusion that the Act

does not violate a prisoner's right to procedural due process”);

see also Murray v. Dosal, 150 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 1998)(same). 

Consequently, there is simply no merit to Mr. Martin’s assertion

that the Court cannot constitutionally apply the PLRA to him or

Case: 2:12-cv-00341-ALM-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 07/02/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-3-

require him to submit his account statement if he wishes to

proceed without paying the filing fee in full at the outset of

the case. 

There also appears to be a second reason why Mr. Martin’s

arguments are in vain. The Court has now reviewed its records

and has found that, on at least three prior occasions, Mr. Martin

has had a civil action dismissed as frivolous or for failure to

state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Martin v.

Warden Welch, Case No. 2:10-cv-736 (S.D. Ohio); Martin v. Ohio

Supreme Court, Case No. 2:04-cv-613 (S.D. Ohio); Martin v. Mrs.

Lowery, Case No. 2:04-cv-641 (S.D. Ohio)(which actually involved

the dismissal of two different cases which the Court had

consolidated). Under a different provision of the PLRA, the socalled “three strikes” provision, a prisoner who has had, on

three or more prior occasions, an action dismissed on such

grounds, may not proceed under §1915 but must pay the full filing

fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(g); see also Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d

596 (6th Cir. 1998)(upholding the constitutionality of this

provision). The only exception to this requirement is for

prisoners who are “under imminent danger of serious physical

injury,” something which Mr. Martin has not alleged.

For both these reasons, it is recommended that the motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) be denied, and

that Mr. Martin be directed to submit the entire $350.00 filing

fee within thirty days if he wishes to proceed with this action. 

If that recommendation is accepted, he should also be advised

that if he does not pay the fee, the action will be dismissed and

will not be reinstated even upon subsequent payment of the filing

fee. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir.

1997). 

Procedure on Objections

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation,

Case: 2:12-cv-00341-ALM-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 07/02/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-4-

that party may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this

Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to

those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made, together with supporting authority for the

objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence

or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with

instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to

object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a

waiver of the right to have the district judge review the

Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a

waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District

Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d

947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-00341-ALM-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 07/02/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>